JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.6.2004 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2003. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 4.1.2003 the complainant lodged the complaint before Anand Town Police Station stating the fact that the marriage of Gauriben had taken place with Vijaybhai Desaibhai Parmar prior to 1 and 1/2 years from the date of the complaint. It is alleged that after the marriage, Gauriben was treated well by her husband and in-laws, but after a period of six months, her in-laws were ill-treating her and raising disputes with regards to household work on petty matters. It is alleged that deceased Gauriben was subjected to cruelty by respondents and as ill-treatment was beyond her control, deceased Gauriben committed suicide by consuming acid. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 16, original complaint Exh. 19, inquest panchnama Exh. 20, P.M. Note Exh. 28, FSL Report Exh. 41 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongfully acquitted the accused though ample evidence is available on record. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Parikh, learned Advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Parikh further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution case, deceased Gauriben got married with respondent No. 1 prior to 1 and 1/2 years from the date of incident in question and while she was residing at her matrimonial home, her husband and in-laws used to take up quarrel for trivial issues and taunting her as regards to bringing less dowry, due to which on 4.1.2003 she consumed acid which is generally used for cleaning toilets and thereby committed suicide. 8.1 In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and also produced 17 documentary evidences. PW 3 complainant - Pratapsinh Chandrasinh Parmar who is brother of deceased Gauriben who was serving as Assistant in Krishna Hospital, Karamsad has deposed that she got married with respondent No. 11 and 1/2 years prior to the incident and initially, they were happily residing. The witness deposed that thereafter dispute arose as regards to demand of dowry, due to which the respondents were ill-treating and harassing the deceased continuously by raising trivial issues. The witness further deposed that there are many things against the present respondents which during the course of cross examination proved to be improvements in his deposition. Even, he has also admitted in the cross examination that he has not mentioned or alleged anything as regards to demand of dowry by the respondents. 8.2 PW 4 Sarojben Pratapsinh Parmar who is mother of the deceased has also given evidence in similar line to that of PW 3, Pratapsinh - her son. However, on going through her entire evidence, she has also made lots of improvements and contradictions in her deposition. From her evidence, it is established that there was no demand of dowry by the respondents and that even she did not state in her statement before the police. 8.3 PW 5 - Parvatiben Chandubhai Chauhan who is sister of the deceased also deposed in the similar line to that of earlier witnesses. From her evidence, it is established that there was no demand of dowry by the respondents and that even she did not state in her statement before the police. 8.3 PW 5 - Parvatiben Chandubhai Chauhan who is sister of the deceased also deposed in the similar line to that of earlier witnesses. She has also improved as regards to demand of dowry of many things including gold ornaments, motor cycle which she had not stated in her statement before the police and that has also been proved during the course of cross examination. 8.4 PW 7 - Mahendrabhai Chandrasinh who is the brother of the deceased has been declared hostile. However, he has admitted that deceased Gauriben has never complained regarding harassment or ill-treatment by the respondents. He deposed that while he visited Gauriben in the hospital, she was unconscious. The witness admitted that regarding the present issue, settlement was arrived at in presence of the leaders of the community. 8.5 PW 8 - Ambaben Manibhai Rohit who is neighbour of the deceased has deposed that the respondents and deceased were staying nearby the quarter and she knew Gauriben. She has stated that she has never heard regarding any quarrel between Gauriben and the respondents. 8.6 The prosecution has also produced the final cause of death at Exh. 29 disclosing that deceased Gauriben died as a result of acid poisoning. 8.7 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased died due to consumption of acid and she has committed suicide. However, on overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is noticed that there is no uniformity as regards to evidence given by the near relatives of the deceased and while deposing before learned trial Court, mother, brother and sister have made lots of improvements and even other allegations as regards to demand of dowry and articles were also levelled before learned trial Court. However, improvements made in their depositions brought on record during the cross examination as well as in the examination of the Investigating Officer, all the witnesses have admitted that they have never stated before the police that the respondents were demanding dowry. However, improvements made in their depositions brought on record during the cross examination as well as in the examination of the Investigating Officer, all the witnesses have admitted that they have never stated before the police that the respondents were demanding dowry. Therefore, it reveals that there was quarrel as regards to trivial issues and very short marriage life of 1 and 1/2 years and as per the say of the prosecution, initially, for a period of one year they were happily leaving and the dispute arose during the last six months. However, taking into consideration the evidence of real brother and the deceased as well as neighbour, till the incident in question took place, the deceased and her husband were residing happily. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.